Antiaging Research Priorities [was Re: Major Criticisms of
james at nospam.com
Sat Sep 19 13:45:21 EST 1998
Nelson Navarro wrote:
> James wrote:
> > > What you're actually saying, then, is that anyone alive today at 120
> > > yrs. of age, must have got there strictly by way of a lifetime of severe
> > > calorie restriction; is that correct?
> > Maybe, maybe not. Since we don't know how it works we don't know that there are
> > not a variety of ways to cause the same metabolic changes. Maybe they ate a lot of
> > something that caused an effect similar to CR. Maybe they were genetically
> > blessed. Who knows... In a complex system (such as the human body) there are
> > often multiple paths to the same outcome, as a result of intertwined pathways,
> > redundancy, etc.
> Understood, but what you and he seem to be implying, is that there is a
> direct correlation between age at death and "rate of aging".
> Also, you seem to be making an apriori assumption that, whatever
> mechanisms are ultimately found to be involved, (in CR or some unknown
> analogous method), they cannot be significantly improved upon, even
> after they are well understood.
> This all seems very speculative to me.
I never said anything of the sort. I certainly do believe that they can be improved upon
somehow, whether it be drugs, genetic engineering, etc. All I said was that I don't
think it can be improved upon by CR (in humans), because I think that humans who live to
120 have already gotten the benefit of what we call CR (whether it was through direct CR
or some other means). In short, I think humans are not going to live longer than 120
without scientific intervention - lifestyle changes (which is what I would call CR) are
not going to do it.
More information about the Cellbiol